I need some advice please

[ramza]

I have been trying to modify most of the d&d p&p rules for quite some time since II am not overly satisfied about the way it manages things.

 

I just had a quick question concerning mages and clerics. First of all, I have thought that it was unfair to have only wizards suffer from spellcasting failure when wearing armor, so I extended that to clerics (to balance things, because clerics will also need to spend points in DEX, their turned undead ability will be linked to WIS instead of CHA. I also decided to give clerics the same HP, same saving throws and same BAB as that of wizards. I dont see why they should be handled differently.

 

However, I noticed another significant difference between the two classes, and there comes my question. Clerics have far more spell uses for most spell levels than wizards have. Is that another one of the Phb's inconsistencies or was this made on purpose to balance things since wizards are supposed to have stronger spells than clerics do? I personnally believe that clerics have very strong spells too and they should have the same spell progression table as that of wizards.

 

What do you think?

[Walsingham]

Firstly, I support anyone who tinkers with anything. So good on you.

 

Secondly, you may be discounting the roleplaying issues surrounding actually being a cleric. Clerics gotta do what their god tells 'em. A wizard can do any damn thing.

 

Thirdly, I didn't realise turn undead was linked to charisma. How does that work? You sit down with the undead over a beer and ask them how they're coping?

[ramza]

Actually, I dont like the whole issue that clerics get automatically all their spells written on their spellbooks. I believe that divine spellcasting is achieved by means of training and learning in such a way that they need to copy their spells from scrolls just a wizards do.

 

I have thought about many more changes in the d&d system and I will post a short list of them in a few days.

 

If you have any other ideas to share, dont hesitate!

[Sand]

I have  been trying to modify most of the d&d p&p rules for quite some time since II am not overly satisfied about the way it manages things.

 

I just had a quick question concerning mages and clerics. First of all, I have thought that it was unfair to have only wizards suffer from spellcasting failure when wearing armor, so I extended that to clerics (to balance things, because clerics will also need to spend points in DEX, their turned undead ability will be linked to WIS instead of CHA. I also decided to give clerics the same HP, same saving throws and same BAB as that of wizards. I dont see why they should be handled differently.

 

However, I noticed another significant difference between the two classes, and there comes my question. Clerics have far more spell uses for most spell levels than wizards have. Is that another one of the Phb's inconsistencies or was this made on purpose to balance things since wizards are supposed to have stronger spells than clerics do? I personnally believe that clerics have very strong spells too and they should have the same spell progression table as that of wizards.

 

What do you think?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Before you go on the deep end on this the advice I should give you is to take a good hard look at Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved. I think it has some goodness in it that can help you.

[ramza]

I avoid buying any kind of d&d p&p books since they really cost a lot. I just borrow a few books from friends or I look for free stuff on the net.

 

When one tries to create his own personalised Phb for his own p&p sessions, the main problem in changing the official rules is to keep some sort of balance. I don't know if the changes mentioned above are balanced and that is why I am asking for other people's opinion.

 

Thanks anyway for the tip! If a friend of mine has this book, be sure that I will take a look at its content.

[Gorth]

Thirdly, I didn't realise turn undead was linked to charisma. How does that work? You sit down with the undead over a beer and ask them how they're coping?

Presumably, it's the strength of your personality that does the trick.

 

Hm... Just trying to envision the above... doing skill checks vs. Bluff, Persuation and Intimidate for Turn Undead

 

Cleric: "Ok, you ugly pile of worm eaten crap, are you going to lie down and be dead again now or do I have to take you apart at the joints and carve my initials on every single one of your bones with a spoon?"

Skeleton (failing will check vs. bluff): "Ehh, Ok "

 

Perhaps Charisma is better

Edited November 15, 2006 by Gorth

[ramza]

I still prefer using WIS since its that stat that you need to understand and channel your god's powers.

[Sand]

I avoid buying any kind of d&d p&p books since they really cost a lot. I just borrow a few books from friends or I look for free stuff on the net.

 

When one tries to create his own personalised Phb for his own p&p sessions, the main problem in changing the official rules is to keep some sort of balance. I don't know if the changes mentioned above are balanced and that is why I am asking for other people's opinion.

 

Thanks anyway for the tip! If a friend of mine has this book, be sure that I will take a look at its content.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I understand you want to keep costs down, believe me, but it is definitely worth the money. It basically rewrites the whole magic system and base classes, removes alignment game mechanic completely, yet retains the DnD feel. If you lived in Iowa I would let you take a look at mine.

 

If you just want to limit power of the Cleric however this is what I would do. Remove the Medium and Heavy armor proficiencies, drop them to a d6 Hit Die, and scale domain abilities, but allow more of them. 1st level they gain 1 domain access, 8th level, they gain a second, and at 16th gain a third.

 

Keep everything else the same.

[ramza]

Thanks for the suggestion and for the offer, Sand!

 

I was still wondering why clerics and druids have more spell uses than wizards do. These classes' main feature is spellcasting and both divine and arcane magic are powerful and deadly. Why can divine spellcasters cast spells more often? Nothing justifies that. Take a look at some FF class-based games, white mages and black mages are equal, they have the same HP and MP, which means they can cast the same number of spells despite their spell lists being different.

 

Another thing: you suggest to give d6 HD to clerics. I prefer to give them d4 instead since nothing proves that clerics are more resilient or more skilled warriors (I am referring to their higher BAB in the official PhB) than wizards are. To my eyes, all they should have are their spells. Basta. No discrimination.

 

I like your idea of scaling the domain abilities. I will take that into account when I will examine those.

Edited November 15, 2006 by ramza

[Maria Caliban]

It seems to be that you're just turning them into wizards with different spells. Their new role is to stand behind everyone else and heal them. That's not what I'd call fun.

[metadigital]

Still too good for Clerics. "

[Deraldin]

It seems to be that you're just turning them into wizards with different spells. Their new role is to stand behind everyone else and heal them. That's not what I'd call fun.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Agreed. I much prefer the tank cleric. He's up front in the heaviest armour he can find with a giant mace to bash in the heads of unbelievers while healing up the fighters.

[Kaftan Barlast]

It seems to be that you're just turning them into wizards with different spells. Their new role is to stand behind everyone else and heal them. That's not what I'd call fun.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Agreed, noone wants to play the oldschool boring healer who is just the partys ever-present errand-boy "Yo clergyboy! Heal me, you jerk!" and "Come on and buff me ffs!"

 

Ive played two clerics in D&D 3.5 PnP and they are not overpowered nor do they deserve to be nerfed. They lack the offensive capabilities of the mages and they do not have a BAB high enough to be up there with fighters, paladins and rangers

[Walsingham]

Lack of offensive spells would be a problem. I've only played DnD in BIS games, never on paper. Well, I tell a lie, I did once, but the GM was so rubbish we never did anything serious. We were getting shoehorned down his one track adventure so badly we took up random interests like knitting, and monkey hurling.

[ramza]

I still wanna stick to my idea. Both clerics and druids have their share of offensive spells. My main question is whether it will unbalance things if I give them the same spell progession table as the wizard's. Will clerics and druids become weaker if I do this or is it worth putting them on the same level as wizards?

 

Just note that I want to make the cleric similar to the wizard, with the only difference that he casts divine spells instead of arcane ones. Concerning the Druid, he will keep his saving throw, BAB, better armor and better HP. I was just considering lowering the number of spell slots he has since he seems a bit too overpowered.

[ramza]

Another issue that troubles me is the obvious lack of balance among two of the planetouched subraces.

 

The major difference between Aasimars and Tieflings is that the former gets a double stat bonus (WIS and CHA), while the latter only gets a single stat bonus (bonus to INT and DEX and penalty to CHA, 2-1=1). How can we balance that? I was thinking of either giving a bit more skill bonuses to the tiefling (+2 to diplomacy and intimidate) or to only give a CHA bonus to Aasimars.

 

What do you think?

[Jorian Drake]

Another issue that troubles me is the obvious lack of balance among two of the planetouched subraces.

 

The major difference between Aasimars and Tieflings is that the former gets a double stat bonus (WIS and CHA), while the latter only gets a single stat bonus (bonus to INT and DEX and penalty to CHA, 2-1=1). How can we balance that? I was thinking of either giving a bit more skill bonuses to the tiefling (+2 to diplomacy and intimidate) or to only give a CHA bonus to Aasimars.

 

What do you think?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

actually, there are much more planetouched than just 2, and you should think of not balancing anything.

 

What's the point of being a wizard if a simple warrior can beat you on 1-1?

Why to be a somewhat 'mystical' race if humans can defeat you in one blink of the eye?

 

 

I prefer to have some less and some over powered races and classes, what are reflected in the campaign somehow.

[ramza]

All about d&d is strategy and careful planning of your actions. Choosing a race and a class are ways for the players to affect their tactics but at the end, everyone should be more or less equal. I call that the principle of "equality of arms" (meh, that's a principle of law, but anyway). The way you have built your character will then make the difference but eveyone should be deserved the same treatment and the same chances of success at the initial stage (meaning the first levels).

 

Despite your opinions, what do you think would be the most balanced way to put aasimars and tieflings on the same level. I have already dealt with the other planetouched races such as the genasis. Here's what I propose:

 

each race keeps its initial abilities but:

earth genasis get +2 CON -2 CHA

fire genasis get +2 STR -2 CHA

water genasis get +2 WIS -2 CHA

air genasis get +2 DEX -2 CHA

aasimars only get +2 CHA

tieflings get +2 INT -2 CHA

 

in addition to that, to balance a bit things since aasimars get a free +2 to their total number of stat points, all the other planetouched races get a +1 or +2 on bluff, intimidate, sense motive and diplomacy.

 

The way things have been designed, I allow the player to pick the planetouched race that suits him best in terms of class development. He needs high dex, get an air genasi... He needs a cleric, get a water genasi...

 

Of course, I have removed all these rules about favored classes: they are too restrictive in my opinion.

[Jorian Drake]

Genasi:

 

* Air Genasi

* Earth Genasi

* Fire Genasi

* Water Genasi

* Dust Para-genasi

* Ice Para-genasi

* Magma Para-genasi

* Ooze Para-genasi

* Smoke Para-genasi

* Steam Para-genasi

 

Other Planetouched races:

 

* Aasimar

* Axani

* Baphitaur

* Cansin

* Chaond

* Draegloth

* Fey'ri

* Lesser Planetouched

* Maeluth

* Mechanatrix

* Shyft

* Tanarukk

* Tiefling

* Wispling

* Zenythri

 

I can't agree with givin all the races the same bonuses, there would be no point in chosing one above the othr, and in Rp speech they would be quite...the same race.

 

Differences are created to SHOW that there ARE differences, if you don't like the other races (and i guess I am right looking at your Sig) then just allow human and nothing else.

[ramza]

I didnt know there were so many planetouched races... how clueless I am... Anyway, I dont really want to implement all of them.

 

I was just thinking that races should be balanced in each category (normal, ECL1, ECL2, etc). I still havent made up my mind though.

 

And concerning my sig, all the characters I create are human since I always wanna get my bonus feat and skills. ^_^ Nothing in the world can replace that.

[Jorian Drake]

I didnt know there were so many planetouched races... how clueless I am... Anyway, I dont really want to implement all of them.

 

I was just thinking that races should be balanced in each category (normal, ECL1, ECL2, etc). I still havent made up my mind though.

 

And concerning my sig, all the characters I create are human since I always wanna get my bonus feat and skills.  ^_^  Nothing in the world can replace that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ramza, there is a system already for creating balanced races/classes.

 

All the released races have been created by that, and even if you think they aren't, they really are balanced in D&D.

 

 

Aasimar get more ability scores because Tieflings get more skill bonuses, also the spell-like abilities are balanced.

 

Think about half-orcs, they seem to be weak compared to the others, becouse they have a -2 on average ability scores, and no real skill bonuses like dwarves or elves.

But they have a +2 Str, and that is counted twice in the score of balance, so in the 'weight' of them the abilities are still balanced.

 

 

Favored classes are there since a long, long time in D&D, and most of the 3.5 version races are utilizing this: An Aasimar for example is ussually something good natured, and most % of the race are paladins. This is what favored class really means, they can be the them easier than the other classes, because it is in their 'blood'.

Of course they can be a Wizard, or anything else, but that path is not natural for them to chose.

 

But I do agree that in the current state the favored class is a bit restricted, I do suggest to increase the favored classes number for every race to either 2 or 3.

 

 

PS: there is only one race that is truly not balanced: half-elf, I also made/still work on a D&D based game world, and I allow the half-elves to chose one of these on character creation:

 

a. one extra feat on level 1

 

or

 

b. one skill point per level

 

 

 

With this small extra they are balanced, and becouse they actually have an option to chose from, the half-elven flexibility doesn't get hurt either.

Edited November 17, 2006 by jorian

[metadigital]

Agreed, noone wants to play the oldschool boring healer who is just the partys ever-present errand-boy "Yo clergyboy! Heal me, you jerk!" and "Come on and buff me ffs!"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Jorian Drake]

Agreed, noone wants to play the oldschool boring healer who is just the partys ever-present errand-boy "Yo clergyboy! Heal me, you jerk!" and "Come on and buff me ffs!"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Too true, too true :D

 

 

I like the 3.5 version cleric, its perfectly fitting for a Lolth priestess

[ramza]

Regarding basic races, I have thought of doing some other modifications. Getting a single +2 to one stat and a -2 to another one just doesn't reflect each races' true features, so I altered and added some stat bonuses:

 

Half-Orc: +2 STR, CON -2 INT, CHA; some bonus skills (whatever Jorian says about half-orcs, I find them too weak and unbalanced. The +2 to strength doesn't make up for the loss of -2 in two other stats. Why should anyone pick this race when there are so many others that are suitable for powergaming?

 

Half-Elf: +2 WIS (they have a broader vision of things because of their double lineage), -2 CHA (bastards aren't easily accepted in any society), some of the racial bonuses of elves (I keep that as it is), plus 4 bonus skill points at first level

 

Dwarves: I consider dwarves to be rather clumsy people (they dont even know how to walk silently) +2 CON, -2 DEX. However, they are strong but fugly: +2 STR and -2 CHA

 

Elves: Most elves are considered to be beautiful as to human standards, they are dexterous but weak in constitution too, in addition to feeling superior to other races (making them less open-minded): +2 DEX and CHA, -2 CON and WIS

 

Gnomes : small stature -2 STR, +2 DEX; creative and intelligent but non-sensical beings: +2 INT, -2 WIS

 

Halflings: Cunning and dexterous, but weaker due to small size: +2DEx and INT, -2 STR and CON

 

 

 

All these changes offer many more choices to the player in terms of class development and multiclassing. Most people wont agree with these modifications though.

 

I have also made some changes to the underdark races that I will post later.

[Walsingham]

I'd have thought you should just quit worrying about balance. I mean why not balance toads as a PC race? It ought to be about the roleplaying. It's not a wargame.